Quantum Entanglement: Not so spooky?

[zerotwoone]

Quantum entanglement is what appears to be the instant transmission of information that two particles share, regardless of distance. For instance if one particle is spinning cw, the other is spinning ccw. If one of these particles is forced to reverse direction, the corresponding particle will reciprocate by reversing direction also, instantaneously, regardless of distance.

 

My explanation: these entangled particles are not seperate particles, but instead to them, is one particle. Imagine a stick, a very long stick, that stretches from one side of the universe to the other. At each end of the stick is a dot, when you twirl this stick, one moves up, the other moves down. This is also a perfect stick that will not bend or any other thing that a stick can do. Instant transmission of information because it is the stick that moves, which is the overall particle. This also has implications for dark matter.

 

Just a muse.

 

Sorry, on a cracked iPhone, so if I don't make sense, it's the phones fault.

[uncool]

One thing you learn from relativity is that you cannot have perfect rigidity. In other words, there is no such stick - any physical stick will compress when pushed from one end.

=Uncool-

[zerotwoone]

It's not a real stick

 

And it's not even about the stick. The point was what we perceive as two particles that are entangled, that they are really one particle, hence the instantaneous transmission of information. Or otherwise there is no distance for the information to travel.

[Klaynos]

Sorry but your description of entanglement is wrong. It's about the measurement of superposition states, once the measurement has been made the entanglement is broken, changing the state will not change the state of the other particle.

[zerotwoone]

Mea Culpa. I didn't realize that it was a comtinuation of the uncertainty principle. Instead of just one superimposed state you have two. The first superimposed state is unknown, but as soon as the first is known, the second is known as well, while collapsing the wave function.

 

I could have saved myself some embarrassment by doing a little bit of research. I still stand by my hypothesis, even if the original premise was wrong, because it could still be a plausible explanation.

Edited June 19, 2013 by zerotwoone

[swansont]

Mea Culpa. I didn't realize that it was a comtinuation of the uncertainty principle. Instead of just one superimposed state you have two. The first superimposed state is unknown, but as soon as the first is known, the second is known as well, while collapsing the wave function.

 

I could have saved myself some embarrassment by doing a little bit of research. I still stand by my hypothesis, even if the original premise was wrong, because it could still be a plausible explanation.

 

Your misconception is quite common and unfortunately reinforced by many pop-sci articles.

[qsa]

Quantum entanglement is what appears to be the instant transmission of information that two particles share, regardless of distance. For instance if one particle is spinning cw, the other is spinning ccw. If one of these particles is forced to reverse direction, the corresponding particle will reciprocate by reversing direction also, instantaneously, regardless of distance.

 

My explanation: these entangled particles are not seperate particles, but instead to them, is one particle. Imagine a stick, a very long stick, that stretches from one side of the universe to the other. At each end of the stick is a dot, when you twirl this stick, one moves up, the other moves down. This is also a perfect stick that will not bend or any other thing that a stick can do. Instant transmission of information because it is the stick that moves, which is the overall particle. This also has implications for dark matter.

 

Just a muse.

 

Sorry, on a cracked iPhone, so if I don't make sense, it's the phones fault.

 

 

You are 100% correct, good guess. This consequence is an automatic outcome of my theory which derives the laws of physics from a simple postulate.That is exactly what my theory concludes, the stick is nothing but the difference between two numbers.

 

check out this thread (particularly the last two posts).

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62848-quantum-statistical-automata/

 

 

The really big result which I obtain is the essence of Dirac equation included the notorious non-locality. When I try to simulate the 2D situation, I am forced to restrict my line throwing activity to only lines that can go between particles directly so as to keep the invariance of quantities calculated in case the frame is rotated. And Wala, I get two particles to interact through their width in the second axis and it does not matter if each is on the other side of the universe, they are both linked!!!! When I calculate spin (what I believe to be) one is up the other down

Edited June 19, 2013 by qsa

[Delta1212]

 

Your misconception is quite common and unfortunately reinforced by many pop-sci articles.

Where classical mechanics predicts a horse, QM instead finds a zebra and pop sci writers everywhere announce the discovery of a unicorn.

[leivos]

Suppose a magician has a pea and two cups on a table. Then he covers the pea with the other cup and shuflles the cups rapidly so that no one knows under which cup the pea is. Then the macigian pushes the cups to slide opposite directions on the table. When a has arrived to the end of the table an assistant lifts it to check if there is a pea in it. If he finds a pea he knows immediately that the other cup is empty and vice versa. So here we have entanglement! I don't understand where's the magic, though.

 

It seems that the jungle of mathematical shuffle makes things just to look magical.

[imatfaal]

Suppose a magician has a pea and two cups on a table. Then he covers the pea with the other cup and shuflles the cups rapidly so that no one knows under which cup the pea is. Then the macigian pushes the cups to slide opposite directions on the table. When a has arrived to the end of the table an assistant lifts it to check if there is a pea in it. If he finds a pea he knows immediately that the other cup is empty and vice versa. So here we have entanglement! I don't understand where's the magic, though.

 

It seems that the jungle of mathematical shuffle makes things just to look magical.

 

 

That's not really entanglement as there is no superposition - it is a purely classical description of a purely classical process

[leivos]

 

 

That's not really entanglement as there is no superposition - it is a purely classical description of a purely classical process

 

Why can't we describe the cup with superposition of two states: pea / no pea?

[swansont]

 

Why can't we describe the cup with superposition of two states: pea / no pea?

 

Because the pea really is in one of the cups the whole time, even though you don't have that information. In QM the pea really is in both cups at the same time.

[leivos]

 

Because the pea really is in one of the cups the whole time, even though you don't have that information. In QM the pea really is in both cups at the same time.

 

Thanks for reminding me of that. It's been a while since I studied QM. For me it is mere mathemathical model of the reality behind.

 

I understand that in QM particles are described as superpositions of multiple states but when measured the state is fixed. Is it possible to show experimentally that particle has really two states at the same time?

[swansont]

 

Thanks for reminding me of that. It's been a while since I studied QM. For me it is mere mathemathical model of the reality behind.

 

I understand that in QM particles are described as superpositions of multiple states but when measured the state is fixed. Is it possible to show experimentally that particle has really two states at the same time?

 

Yes. The superposition allows the states to interfere, which doesn't happen if the particle is in one state.